To what extent, if at all, can a claim, which is in time, and found to be arguable on the merits, be struck out as an abuse of process, because of what was said (or not said) at an earlier hearing in separate but unrelated proceedings? That was the issue before the Court of Appeal in ORJI v NAGRA (2023) EWCA 1289. The Court addressed the rule in HENDERSON v HENDERSON and found that it was not applicable.

Read more »

The question before the Court in FRONTIERS CAPITAL 1 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v FLOHR (2023) EWHC 2723 (Ch) was whether the general partner of a limited partnership governed by the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 (the 1907 Act) has standing after the dissolution and apparent winding up of the partnership to sue a third party in respect of a cause of action accruing before dissolution. A limited partnership under the 1907 Act is of course different from an ordinary partnership under the Partnership Act 1890 (the 1890 Act) and from a limited liability partnership under the Limited Liability Partnership Act 2000.

Read more »

With effect from 26 October 2024, the Worker Protection ( Amendment of Equality Act 2010 ) Act 2023 will introduce a duty on employers to take “ reasonable steps “ to prevent sexual harassment of their employees in the workplace.

Esso v Breen ( 2023 ) EWHC 2013 ( KB ) concerns an application for a permanent injunction to restrain unlawful protests. The claimant must (1) establish a specific cause of action’ (2) as regards persons unknown, satisfy the Canada Goose guidance in so far as it applies to final relief, (3) satisfy s 12(2) HRA 1998 as to service, and (4) show interference with ECHR Articles 10 and 11 is justified.

IN MXX v A Secondary School ( 2023 ) EWCA Civ 996 the Court of Appeal examines the 2 stage test for vicarious liability : (1 ) Whether the relationship of the defendant and the tortfeasor is one that is capable of giving rise to vicarious liability, which is not limited to employment, and ( 2 ) , if so, whether whether the connection that links that relationship between the defendant and the tortfeasor with the act or omission of the tortfeasor is sufficiently close to give rise to vicarious liability.

PCR 2015 confer a cause of action for damages only on commercial undertakings that had sought to obtain for themselves a relevant public contract. No right to bring proceedings is conferred on other commercial operators such as sub-contractors, or legal entities further removed, such as sub-sub contractors or related group companies. So held in the National Lottery challenge, IGT v Gambling Commission (2023) EWHC 1961 (TCC).

In R ( Police Superintendents” Association ) v Police Remuneration Review Body ( 2023 ) EWHC. 1838 ( Admin ) Fordham J sets out 10 Principles governing the duty of candid disclosure in public law proceedings.

BEKOE v ISLINGTON LBC (2023) EWHC 1668 (KB) is concerned with a claim against the Council that succeeded for the common law tort of misuse of the claimant’s private financial information and reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of it, and breach of his rights under Articles 5, 12, 15, 23 and 82 of the GDPR, including in relation to inadequate and delayed response to a Subject Access Request, under Article 8 of ECHR, and under the Data Protection Act 2018.

On Misuse of Private Information, the Judge concluded:-
“48. There is ample authority that financial information can be categorised as “private information” for the purposes of the tort of misuse of private information … There is therefore a reasonable expectation that this kind of information would be kept private. A reasonable person with ordinary sensibilities placed in the same position as the claimant would expect that a comprehensive snapshot of their general financial information would be kept private.”
“51. In this case, the combination of financial information relating to several bank accounts and mortgage accounts including balances with the comprehensive view it gave of Mr Bekoe’s financial situation is clearly private information. In addition, from the evidence before me, it would appear that it is not only Mr Bekoe’s private information that has been compromised but also that of his son.”
“56. …I find that the defendant did misuse private information belonging to Mr Bekoe by accessing details relating to a collection of bank accounts and mortgage accounts associated with Mr Bekoe (and others) in July 2015 without lawful authority.”

On the GDPR, the Judge found that the Council had violated the claimant’s rights under Articles 5, 12 and 15 of the GDPR.

On quantum, the Judge observed:-
“65. Compensation is available in the tort of misuse of private information on a wider basis than under the GDPR. In particular, a successful claimant is entitled to damages to compensate them for the loss or diminution of the right to control the use of their private information independently of any distress caused …”
“69. I find that … the subsequent conduct of the defendant, in this case, is sufficient to trigger aggravated damages. The way that the trial and the litigation as a whole has been conducted by the defendant has revealed a lack of respect for legal requirements related to privacy and data protection. Repeated failure to disclose key information, disclosure at the final hour, two working days before the trial, and the absence of any clear evidence to support or substantiate Defence submissions relating to alleged fraud have clearly aggravated the distress caused to the claimant. To be clear, it is not the assertion of a Defence in this case which triggers aggravated damages but rather the absolute failure to evidence it along with the continued unjustified shape shifting of the basis of the defence which continued right up until Mr Cunliffe’s final submissions at trial.
70. …I find that the aggravated nature of the damages should be wrapped up in one overall figure.”
“73. In this case, taking account of the misuse of private information, the loss of the right to control the information and the level of distress caused by the GDPR breaches along with the aggravating factors, I award an overall figure of £6,000 for damages.”

In TRANSPORT FOR LONDON v PERSONS UNKNOWN (2023) EWHC 1038 (Admin) a final injunction is granted against named defendants and persons unknown. They were supporters of, and activists connected with, INSULATE BRITAIN. The injunction prohibits them from blocking identified roads and bridges during their protests.

In considering whether a misconduct dismissal was fair or outside the band of reasonable responses open to the employer and unfair, an Employment Tribunal must guard against a “ substitution mindset “, both in relation to the employer’s investigation and the decision to dismiss, and consider the fairness of the disciplinary process as a whole : Leicester City Council v Chapman (2022) EAT 178 at paras 31-37 inclusive.